Parking fine while picking up children

DirectDebacle

Tilt wrote: »

God give me strength! :huh:

I gave my advice based on the information the OP provided. The OP stated they left the car for 9 minutes on a yellow line and got a ticket.

I think it's safe to say that the ticket was either code 1; Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours or code 2; Parked or loading/unloading in a restricted street where waiting and loading/unloading restrictions are in force.

I think anyone with an ounce of sense would not suspect (from the information given) that it was issued for anything else.

Quite frankly, that was a ridiculous post seeing as you want to throw insults about.

Fair enough. You decided to give advice based on guesswork.

No doubt CM will be able to confirm it a fact that "packs of parking people" consist entirely of CEO.

Anyone with an ounce of sense would realise that the OP's description of events is open to more than one interpretation.

Before advising on how to appeal a ticket it might be useful if you knew exactly the reason(s) it was issued.

Wouldn't you agree?

Happychappy

Claim the Greggs Defence, I'm sure it will work, many mother's do ?

Lum

Happychappy wrote: »

Claim the Greggs Defence, I'm sure it will work, many mother's do ?

What is that defence then?

You claim diminished responsibility due to impaired judgement and produce a Greggs receipt as evidence of such?

Happychappy

Got it in one, claim obesity can't walk 100 yards and take a steak slice in evidence :T simples

Lum

Happychappy wrote: »

Got it in one, claim obesity can't walk 100 yards and take a steak slice in evidence :T simples

That isn't what I was getting at all. I was suggesting that someone who eats "food" from Greggs is not of sound judgement.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

I've corrected that for you. Have you even forgotten what you posted yourself "from one council"??

The child was 4 years old.... there may of been a road to cross.... the school may of been on a busy road...

My advice was based on the possibility of these factors being the case... I even used phrases like "providing that..." when making him/her aware of the boarding and alighting exemptions...

Are you not still getting the picture?? :doh:

Don't change my posts. Instead try to concentrate on posting correctly yourself.

Just because a child is young it would not be grounds for appeal outside a nursery, or infant school, because that would be the norm, and not extraordinary circumstances.. And being the norm would allow all the parents to ignore the parking regulations. Why can't you understand this??

Rover_Driver

Jamie_Carter wrote: »

Just because a child is young it would not be grounds for appeal outside a nursery, or infant school, because that would be the norm, and not extraordinary circumstances.. And being the norm would allow all the parents to ignore the parking regulations. Why can't you understand this??

It doesn't need to be extraordinary, it can be normal that the child has to be escorted - then the exemption applies.

Jamie_Carter

Tilt wrote: »

Mr Carter, I do wish you would think carefully before posting... you are really making you hole a lot deeper!

Now your are suggesting that because signs dosn't "say so on a sign post" that Boarding and alighting exemptions don't exist? Clearly in your earlier post you know know that they do!

Do you actually read what you post?? :rotfl::rotfl:

Tilt wrote: »

I did not report any post in particular, I asked the site team to investigate your allegations that you were throwing around that myself and Coupon Mad were giving out inaccurate and bad advice as you were adamant (and still continue to be) that we were. I'm sure there will be a lot of people who will disagree with your opinions of CM "being abusive to anyone who dares to question anything they say". Again, if this is the case, they have the option of bringing it to the attention of the site team.

Rubbish. You just ganged up to get the post removed. If the forum team wanted to actually investigate anything, then all the proof is there.

As for bad advice, there is certainly nothing new about people giving out bad advice on forums. But most people don't get all upset if people don't agree with them.

Tilt wrote: »

I am adamant because I gave reasonable and accurate advice and I will stand by that until the cows come home if you like.

And most posters on this thread don't agree with you. So maybe you should consider that there is a chance you could be wrong.

Tilt wrote: »

As far as "exceptional circumstances" are concerned, trhat would be for the adjudicator to decide... the OP would present his/her reasons for leaving the car for 9 minutes, look at the proximity to how far away the school was, check to see whether the OP parked in position which didn't pose a danger to other road users and that the child was of an age which he/she could not reasonably expected to walk safely from the car into the school un-assisted.

But what the OP has told us that they didn't want their child to walk because it was 'too cold'. This implies that there was no other reason, otherwise I'm sure they would have told us.

So yes it would be for the adjudicator to decide. But plain old common sense tells most people what the decision would be.

Tilt wrote: »

We have already established that the information was fairly vague from the OP BUT, they are still entitled to be made aware of what options they have... are they not?

Yes they are entitled to be made aware of their options, and they do seem to be already aware that they can appeal. BUT what is wrong is when someone gives them false hope that they will be successful.

Tilt wrote: »

Just because I decided to make them aware of those options, dosn't mean I have given bad advice because I havn't. Had the OP stated they had left the car on zig zag markings, my advice would of been to pay the penalty.

I, and it would appear many other people in this thread, seem to think that you have given them false hope. Which I would regard as bad advice (I suppose you are going to report me again for saying so?).

Tilt wrote: »

I see little point in carrying on this argument with you as you clearly will not (or refuse to) see reason.

I 100% stand by my contribution to the thread because I am impartial and gave out information based on the question that was posed. If the OP painted a different picture to what the actual circumstances were (i.e. they didn't qualify for boarding and lighting), then they will be facing paying the full penalty and quite rightly so.

You though have created a ridiculous argument based on no facts at all. As I repeatedly stated that You have no idea of the situation that the OP was in but yet, you definitively state that they were rightly ticketed and should not have grounds for appeal.

THATis what I call poor advice and should really have no place on a forum which is supposed to help people and not judge them.

It appears that your view is clouded by your crusade against parking restrictions, and that you struggle to look at this issue from a balanced point of view.

We all find parking restrictions extremely annoying at times, but we need to remember some of the reasons why they exist. Put yourself in the shoes of the driver of an emergency vehicle, that can't get through because someone who thinks that parking restrictions are just there to be challenged has just parked where they like. Or put yourself in the shoes of the person/s who need assistance from the crew of the emergency vehicle. Or you could put yourself in the shoes of the parents of many children who are seriously injured or killed, when crossing the road from behind illegally parked cars.

So when the adjudicator considers the evidence, they should have the above at the back of their minds. So do you really think that the excuse that 'it was cold' would wash with them??

Jamie_Carter

Coupon-mad wrote: »

Irrelevant, if trying to stop people from parking to deliver children safely to premises, yes. Not irrelevant in that they would stop people leaving a car there, parked, for any longer than it takes to accompany a child.

That's why the lines normally painted outside a school are yellow zig zags which do have the effect of 'no stopping at all'. They are the 'safety' lines you are thinking of and if they are not outside your local school then the question to ask of the Council is 'why not?'

This thread is hilarious bearing in mind all of you posters are actually on the motoring board...and yet 80% here seem not to know what a DYL or SYL means.

Do you have any idea how often emergency vehicles are delayed because people believe that they can park where they want if they only leave the vehicle for 5 or 10 minutes??

In many emergency situations seconds can make the difference between life and death. So the boarding/alighting exemptions are supposed to be for when someone stays with the vehicle, or they will be close enough to rush back to the vehicle should it need to be moved in a hurry.

Jamie_Carter

Rover_Driver wrote: »

CM's reply was only in respect of the boarding and alighting exemption in respect of the yellow line restriction.


Anything else, as you describe, should be dealt with appropriately.

The problem is with the interpretation of the boarding and alighting exemption. As I have previously stated, you are supposed to be able to return to the vehicle in a hurry if required to move it. So if in the OP's case the school was 4.5 minutes away from the car, then this would be too far away to rush back to the vehicle to move it. Or if the school was only 30 seconds away, and the OP was standing around waiting with their child, then this also wouldn't be covered by the exemption.